No matter what your political affiliation is, you are likely to see both good and bad in President Obama's newly announced plans for Afghanistan. However, somewhat hidden below the attention being given to the projected costs in terms of both U.S. dollars and U.S. lives, is the emergence of a significant new element on the international scene - diplomacy.
Under the plan itself, for example, in addition to the military aspect, the president will send hundreds of civilians from the State Department into the region to establish or increase contacts with Afghan and Pakistani officials. One of the stated objectives will be to court the more moderate elements of the Taliban movement and thereby weaken the insurgency.
Another prong of this diplomatic effort will likely be aimed at the tribal warlords with the intended purpose of convincing them that they had better come on board what will be the winning side.
Also, as the international community welcomes the new spirit out of Washington, our NATO allies are beginning to be more receptive to increasing their commitment to the Afghan campaign. And in that respect, the Obama administration has responded by saying it wants more civilian support to strengthen the diplomatic endeavors rather than additional troops.
And perhaps the most surprising development of all is that Iran is participating along with the U.S. in two international conferences aimed at stabilizing Afghanistan. It turns out that the Afghan turmoil actually represents a situation in which the interests of the two nations overlap.
One of the conferences begins today in Moscow and Russian officials have already announced they would help break the ice between Iranian and American officials. The second conference will take place at The Hague next week.
Perhaps it would be wise to temper any optimism that such developments will produce immediate results but the easing of international tensions through these types of interactions in the regional and global arenas represent a welcome breath of fresh air.
Meanwhile, the Department of Defense, this week, released the obituaries of two soldiers, ages 26 and 35, killed in Iraq. Both deaths were classified as "non-combat-related" under the new definition created by the Pentagon last year.
According to the website icasualties.org, U.S. deaths in Iraq now stand at 4,261, including one whose family is being notified today.
At the same time, the Department of Defense released the obituaries of six soldiers killed in Afghanistan, ranging in age from 19 to 35.
Total U.S. deaths in Afghanistan reached 600 as of March 27, according to the Pentagon.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 41
D - I - P - L - O - M - A - C - Y.
Been so long since we've seen it.
Thanks for the information.
JULY 24, 2008
The Bush administration’s recent diplomatic overtures toward Iran have unleashed a torrent of criticism from neoconservatives and have fueled concerns in Israel that Washington is shelving the option of using military force against Tehran’s nuclear facilities.
After months of rejecting the possibility of negotiating with Iran until it suspends nuclear enrichment, the administration sent a high-level envoy July 20 to European-led talks with Iranian diplomats on the nuclear issue. Washington also has suggested a willingness to open a low-level diplomatic mission in Tehran for the first time since 1979.
This article from 2007 speaks to the "years of tortuous negotiations and delays" in the Bush diplomacy efforts that resulted in North Korea ostensibly shutting down their nuclear reactors with the shipment of an oil payoff from the USA. AP Writer BO-MI LIM
Thursday, June 23, 2005 USAToday
CAIRO — Laura Bush, who kept a relatively low profile during her husband's first term, stepped boldly into the thicket of Middle Eastern politics this week.
Following a trail blazed by Eleanor Roosevelt, the first lady is taking a leading role in U.S. efforts to win back the goodwill in the Middle East lost over the war in Iraq and the attendant torture scandals.
March 28, 2002
MIDEAST TURMOIL: WASHINGTON; Bush Diplomacy Yields Few Promising Signs
The idea Bush didn't use diplomacy is laughable on it's face......
Very little diplomacy until the very end.
David,
Yes, it is good to see a return to Diplomacy, slow and fraught with uncertainty.
We wait. . .
I listen in on the AM Conserv. Talk shows.
According to "them" this is all because Obama is a secret muslim terrorist, his desire to use diplomacy as an important part of foreign relationships, I mean.
I wish him well.
Diplomacy is a sign of strength, not weakness.
Thank you, I haven't been to gather since late 2006, It is nice to return and see so many familiar writers/thinkers. . .
I had forgotten how enjoyable this all is, a forum to agree and disagree, explore ideas and challenge each other.
Anyway, and seriously, I'm looking forward to your commentary, articles and poetry once again. Great to have you back...
I thought diplomacy meant we were sending troops or air strikes in?
Wow! This Obama guy has some really interesting and new ideas.
Yeah... I was being sarcastic.
Thanks for sharing this, Dave. It's nice to see diplomacy being worked and wielded once again. 10 for you.
Yep he sure does. He has taken us from the brink of a Bush dictatorship to the brink of Obama socialism. Boy, the future sure is looking bright isn't it?
When the means of producing and distributing goods is owned by the Obama government, let me know.
Until then, I'll keep my verbal pitchfork pointed at the Wall Streeters who cheated free market capitalism in order to make themselves filthy rich at the expense of investors, homeowners, foreigners and taxpayers.
To hell with Osama, I would give the Taliban what they want and watch them fall allover themselves. As long as you give them target they will keep on shooting while the heads of state get richer at our expense. I must say, Obama has left a way out for himself, if things do not work out, he may pull out.
You obviously don't pay very much attention to the news. Let's see....he just canned the CEO of GM. But I'll get back to you at the end of his first term. Then we'll see how much the Government controls. But it ain't just Obama. Bush started it and McCain would have continued it if he had been elected.
The whole point of the USA and the West is that the world is full of really bad countries and people and if we do not rally the civilized world to do something about them they will take over and plunge the world into an even bigger mess.
It's kind of like my side yard, every year I just give up on the weeding in the winter and by the time I focus on it again the weeds have taken over.
The job gets harder as the world changes and technology, communication and weapons get better and more available, we need to be more active, not less active, and we need to care about the actors inside our country who do not care one bit for anything except their superiority in money and power to other Americans. We cannot win that way, and that is what all this talk about nationalization and socialism is ... an attempt to revitalize the idea that the rich can just do whatever comes to them and it will be good for the country as a whole.
Look at the US versus the rest of the developed world ... lots of people ... maybe up to 30% don't think it matters if we fall down and never get up as long as they can pop off about their favorite slogans, but most Americans know the score, and Obama is doing well to keep everything on the up and up.
Funny how the right wing slogan seem to have no traction against an honest man.
Your side has gotten this wrong all along, the complaint should have been about the takeover by the wealthy and the corporations of the government and the cutting off of funding for the poeple and taxing through corruption and private profits of people until there is no more blood to suck out.
A bunch of bureaucratic types from the State Dept just adds the number of potential targets needing to be guarded thus removing troops/security elements from their primary mission of keeping the Taliban from any sort of military initiative.